Elisabeth Lenes v. Loral Langemeier

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cv-00316-CWH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998643021].. [11-1012]

Appeal: 11-1012

Document: 32

Date Filed: 07/29/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1012

ELISABETH LENES; STEVEN LENES,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
LORAL LANGEMEIER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00316-CWH)

Submitted:

July 25, 2011

Before KING and
Circuit Judge.

DAVIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

July 29, 2011

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

G. Mark Phillips, William C. Wood, Jr., Erin R. Stuckey, NELSON,
MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH. LLP, Columbia, South Carolina;
J. Mitchell Little, SCHEEF & STONE, LLP, Frisco, Texas, for
Appellant.
Guy M. Burns, Jonathan S. Coleman, JOHNSON, POPE,
BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, LLP, Tampa, Florida; James C. Bradley,
Nina H. Fields, RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC,
Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1012

Document: 32

Date Filed: 07/29/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Loral
denying

her

diversity

Langemeier

motion

action.

appeals

to

compel

We

have

the

district

arbitration

reviewed

the

in

court’s
the

record

order

underlying
included

on

appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and find no error in the
district

court’s

ruling.

Accordingly,

we

affirm.

See

Am.

Recovery Corp. v. Computerized Thermal Imaging, 96 F.3d 88, 92
(4th Cir. 1996) (noting that “whether a party has agreed to
arbitrate an issue is a matter of contract interpretation: ‘[A]
party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute
which he has not agreed so to submit.’”) (citations omitted).
We deny the Appellees’ motion to file a sur-reply brief and to
schedule oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2